Palmer v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 1220 · 1983
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably Hudson v. Palmer (1984), Hudson v. Palmer (1983)
34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Katz v. United States · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“done pursuant to an established program of conducting random searches of single cells or groups of cells reasonably designed to deter or discover the possession of contraband”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hudson v. Palmer · Willis v. Artuz“... Parratt’s scope cannot easily be limited to negligent deprivations of property. For, if the underlying principle is, as Justice Rehnquist stated in a plurality opinion, that when no practical way to provide a pre-deprivation hearing exists, a post deprivation hearing will satisfy the dictates of procedural due process, then it as well applies to an intentional deprivation for which meaningful prior review was impractical____ [T]here is no practical mechanism by which Virginia could prevent its guards from conducting personal vendettas against prisoners other than by punishing them after the fact, nor have we been given any cause to believe that Virginia courts would be less diligent in protecting prisoners from intentionally inflicted injuries than in protecting them from negligently inflicted injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Parratt’s scope cannot easily be limited to negligent deprivations of property. For, if the underlying principle is, as Justice Rehnquist stated in a plurality opinion, that when no practical way to provide a predeprivation hearing exists, a postdeprivation hearing exists, a postdeprivation hearing will satisfy the dictates of procedural due process, then it as well applies to an intentional deprivation for which meaningful prior review was impractical.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thurman v. Rose
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.